Tolkien's Universe: Genre, Narrative Style and Philosophy

or, "Some superficial considerations of The Lord of the Rings"

By Morten Brøsted Christiansen

Translated by Martin Hardgrave

"This task grew in the telling, until it ended by being my understanding of the Great War of the Ring". I will start my examination of The Lord of the Rings with this paraphrase of its introduction.

The first time I read anything by Tolkien was when I borrowed the Danish edition of The Hobbit from the local library. From what my brother had said I was expecting the story of Arthur and Merlin: I was greatly surprised when I discovered what it was really about. I read on though, and was soon finished. Later I read The Lord of the Rings, and I was hooked. I also read the English edition. What was all of this? My interest remained, and it was the ideal subject for my 3.G project [in Denmark 3.G is the final (3rd) year in grammar or high school (gymnasium)].

So I was sat there with a book which was in my opinion unsuitable for traditional literary analysis; but nevertheless, there was much to tackle...

In this project I will analyse the fairy story genre as a concept, as it is the medium Tolkien uses. I will also compare it with the fairy tale (folk tale). Next I will examine the narrative style and artistic devices Tolkien adopts, as this is largely the basis of my interest in literature. Finally, I will tackle the most important part of the project: an examination of Middle-earth and the concepts which are important in it, and use these as a springboard to an examination of the philosophy which is found in Tolkien's world.

Genre

The English "fairy story" is translated overloosly as "eventyr" in Danish. There are greater problems with "fairy tale". In Gyldendal's English/Danish dictionary both are incorrectly translated as "eventyr". But why is this not correct? I suppose they are the same to a certain extent, but if one wants a more precise definition of "fairy story" one must briefly examine the genre.

A fairy tale ("folkeeventyr" - folk tale) is a relatively simple story, which takes place "east of the sun" and "once upon a time". The world is populated by princes, trolls, and fairies, which openly express their goodness or wickedness by their looks and actions. The fairy tale often follows a formulaic theme, building on the repetition of rituals and phrases. The hero or heroine is faced with various tests of moral character, and if they succeed they gain the aid of mighty or magical creatures. The number three is often involved.

A fairy story, on the other hand, does not have this fixed framework, even though some of them contain several of the above points. In general, all the irrational guidelines are removed, such that the story can become more free and at the same time credible.

An important requirement for a story to be a fairy story is that it is "fairy", that is to say, set in a fairy place where magic works and is unquestioned. In my interpretation of what fairy is, the place cannot be our world, except if changes are made to adapt the fairy world to our world's reality, in that it

is made clear that the fairy world is not real. It is necessary that the story takes place in another dimension, a fictitious parallel world. Thus, the story cannot be a dream, even if the dream takes place in a fairy world (but the dream may well be a means of crossing over into the fairy realm), and finally it must not be a fable, as the animals are just a personification of human traits (with a little magic in the fable it could well be a fairy story). If a fairy story and its author (both conditions must be met) insist on the reality of the story's narrative, thus denying that it is imaginary, the story becomes occult or religious.

The final factor I will name is the timeframe, which admittedly is a purely aesthetic condition. Most fairy stories take place in a Middle Ages environment where there is access to the tools of that era. One could imagine a fairy story as science fiction or contemporary fiction, but as that which characterizes fairy stories are things which belong in a Middle Ages setting it would undoubtedly be difficult to reconcile the two.

The events which take place in fairy stories have many similarities to those in fairy or folk tales. There is often talk of a "quest", where the heroes go forth to complete a task for (or with the help of) mighty or magical creatures. They face many hardships along the way that must be overcome. This outer theme is thus a link between, or directly a part of, the struggle between good and evil.

I have mentioned that fairy stories take much inspiration from fairy or folk tales, but there is also another great source of inspiration to the first fairy stories (Tolkien, C.S.Lewis): ancient mythology and the Sagas, such as Greek mythology and the Edda. These are the sources of many of the creatures that live in the fairy world, though some have become "prototypes" which display only some of the characteristics of the fabled, classical creatures.

In Tolkien's interpretation of what fairy stories are, the presence of people is an important consideration. He even went as far as to say: "most good fairy stories are not 'stories about fairies' but about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm " and for that reason he makes hobbits and men related.

In my discussion of the genre I have chosen to use the expression "fairy story" instead of "fantasy", as for me "fantasy" is associated with all the stories of magic, sword-fighting, and strange creatures, whilst fairy stories to a greater degree take advantage of classical creatures and a Middle Ages atmosphere.

Narrative Style

Even in the prologue to The Lord of the Rings one begins to have a sense of something strange, because there is here a somewhat odd passage: "Those days, the Third Age of Middle-earth, are now long past, and the shape of all lands has been changed; but the regions in which the Hobbits then lived were doubtless the same as those in which they still linger: the North-West of the Old World, east of the Sea ".

This passage is a stroke of genius, telling in all its simplicity that Hobbits still live hidden amongst us, and that the author of the book lives in modern times, or at least the modern times of Middle-earth. The author tells his story through ancient documents which have passed through the ages from the protagonists themselves. Through the prologue Tolkien lets the reader know that The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are actually parts of the Red Book of Westmarch, written by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins themselves. Alongside this there are several allusions to the fact that it has been edited by a contemporary person.

With these sleights-of-hand Tolkien lets the trilogy be "a book within a book", and thus endows it with a particularly realistic feature - a history. This opinion is in conflict with that of Paul Kocher , who concluded that the War of the Ring was part of our past.

Here I think Kocher is a little too dramatic and uncritical. Of course all of these allusions can be interpreted in that way, but with a little rational thought it is easy to brush aside his interpretation. True enough, there is nothing to suggest that my proposition, as opposed to Kocher's, is justified - at least not in the narrative part of the trilogy, but the forward, in which Tolkien himself abstracts the book from our world (and admits that it is he who wrote it), one can find the following quote: "As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical ".

The above quote is a significant statement about the book: this book was not written with any other aim than to please both the author and the reader! In the forward one finds the following: "The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them ".

Summarized by the above quote, I contend that my proposition is supported. It should be mentioned here that The Lord of the Rings was created to be England's mythological (and imaginary) past, along lines similar to Norse mythology, as Tolkien believed that one was lacking (in this he succeeded to a degree, as many of Tolkien's creatures have come to be regarded by many as being "proper" mythological creatures (orcs, Hobbits, and Ents, for example).

It must be noted that there are perhaps inner motives in the book, that is, phenomena to do with the world of the book: unintentional and therefore subconscious; as well as the fact that it is not possible to take into account what the position of others is as regards interpreting things that (according to the author) should not be interpreted. For example, it could be interesting to see the results found by the application of Freud's and Jung's theories (this is not a challenge!).

Tolkien's authorship is marked by a perfectionism and a wish for believability that borders on the obsessive. This leads to Tolkien's narratives being incredibly varied when called for (here I am refering to The Lord of the Rings, particularly as this book is Tolkien's main achievement; and in The Hobbit, for example, there are no circumstances requiring such variety, as that is mainly a children's book which leaves little to the imagination, though which like all his writings has a "past" which is elaborated upon in The Silmarillion ). This perfectionism can create problems for an author like Tolkien who uses a stream of consciousness approach, as during the formation of the story wholly new and unexpected elements can arise. One example of this is when the character of Strider appeared in the story: "...I had then no more notion than they had of (...) who Strider was; and I had begun to despair of surviving to find out." Tolkien wrote this in the introduction to Tree and Leaf , and this is where the problem arises; because of Tolkien's indomitable perfectionism he has to hint a past (and future) for this person. It is doubtful that Tolkien himself knew anything about the explanation for the unknown before the time that he wrote it down. Perhaps he built up a series of loose ends and suggestions during the course of the story and only first tied them together much later, before writing it down. Perhaps he realises the connection at the same time (place in the book) that the reader does.

Even Tolkien's style of writing was inspired by fairy-stories. His language is dramatic, and when required by the plot it is filled with adjectives. He is the all-knowing, descriptive author, who cannot remotely be described as objective. A relatively large part of his stories is taken by descriptions of landscapes, cultures, and the history of peoples and lands. When he allows himself to wander he can be like an old man who only reaches his destination after several detours. This leads to a great familiarity with the characters and lands, and a sense of mystique about the characters who are not overtly described as such (Gandalf, Treebeard, Saruman, and Strider, for example).

The choice of characters is of course not coincidental. If one looks closely at them one discovers that in some way they are familiar before one learns about their actions. This is largely due to Tolkien's use of archetypes, and here one can clearly see the inspiration from fairy-stories. The characters "wear their hearts on their sleeves", and are the personification of their being.

Middle-earth

The Lord of the Rings has been read all over the world. It has been translated into 33 languages and more than 20 million copies have been sold . There are many possible reasons for this, the main one being that it is a good story, but the narrative style is an important consideration, that is, whether many people think the story is well written. The basis for these two conditions in Tolkien's case is his universe, Middle-earth, or perhaps one should say Arda, which covers the whole of Tolkien's invented world.

It is natural to begin an examination of this with the Hobbits. The Hobbits are one of Tolkien's own inventions: small, cheerful folk with small, round stomachs, and wooly, bare feet. The Hobbits really are a stroke of genius. One does not need to read much about the Hobbits before realising they are one of the most comfortable peoples. They are perfect gentlemen, and are in fact archetypical Englishmen. They are down-to-earth, and lean more to domestic confort rather than to adventures. In spite of this (or perhaps because of this) Tolkien chooses them as his main protagonists and heroes. In fact it is tactically and narratively shrewd to choose them, as the Hobbits are about as ignorant of the world around them as the reader is. In addition, the Hobbits appeal to us, the outside observers (in the whole of Arda it is the Hobbits which most remind us of we who are "outside" Middle-earth).

We see Middle-earth through the eyes of the Hobbits. And what a Middle-earth! It is a marvel for the outside observer, with all of its oddities, its wealth of flora and fauna, landscapes, and people; from the fair Rivendell to the dark Mordor.

If one looks at the map of Middle-earth it does not seem totally alien. As the story takes place in an area whose nature and environment so much resembles Europe's, it is clear that geographically the area reminds us of Europe (in addition, in the mythology it is Europe), so the Sea must lie west of the continent. This might seem like a superfluous detail, but it is important for an author like Tolkien, for

whom everything must be believeable. Tolkien knew that if he had created a different world the reader, because of their own experiences, would have found it hard to imagine what it was like. This is yet another authorial trait which emphasises Tolkien's perfectionism, that is to say the prime importance of believability.

Let us begin with the Shire. The Shire is the home of the Hobbits, and as such must be suited to them. As has been mentioned, the Hobbits are the archetypal Englishmen, therefore the Shire must be the archetypal England. The Shire has a pleasant, hilly landscape, with no impressive buildings or areas of outstanding natural beauty. No large towns grace (or blot) the landscape: Nature's discrete beauty reigns. Where but here could the Hobbits live?

This is a recurrent theme. Tolkien has taken great trouble to match landscapes with the peoples who live there. Likewise it is important that the styles of architecture are suited to the people who live there: a magestic and proud people would not feel at home in a humble environment with flimsy buildings.

The Dwarves live under the mountains in massive warrens of skillfully crafted majestic halls; the Elves in verdant forests, in harmony with nature to such a degree that nature itself is shaped by their taste. Men, in spite of an absence of real, powerful kings, live in large cities with tall towers.

All in all a striking symbolism, emphasising as it does the believability of the different races: the Elves are fair, the Dwarves industrious yet ambitious, Men whose culture reflects our more radical cultures, and the cheerful Hobbits.

Tolkien lets the world change character according to the peoples who live there, and leaves us in no doubt as to what type of people they are who live in that particular place at that particular time. But it is not just the people who characterize the land: the land characterizes them, both favourably and disfavourably according to the location and possibilities of the place.

The lands of the "good peoples" are green and fertile; the peoples there flourish and keep together. Their greatest danger is their pride and patriotism, and a disinclination to cooperate with other peoples. The "evil peoples" are not blessed with such favourable conditions: their lands are dark and gloomy, and should they occupy a "good" land it soon becomes dark, dreary and barren. Buildings and other possessions become grotesque reflections of what they once were. The peoples in these lands are greatly influenced by their surroundings: they become bitter, and if they lack others to fight they will fight amongst themselves.

But all of this would quickly destroy all credibility from the story if it was not for the starting point: Europe. Although the landscape is more or less a reflection of the peoples that live there, the real world acts as a counterweight that must be complied with. Thus, the personification of Middle-earth cannot run out of control as long as one only uses tools that are found in one variety in reality.

Philosophy

Up to now I have only been interested in the outer framework, that is, the world, and this may surprise the noncommittal reader. I think I can be excused, though, for although the inner part of the narrative (the story) is the most important part of any story, it would be worthless without the outer framework. In addition I find this framework to be an essential part of Tolkien's works; their detailed realism giving the reader the sense of believability required to familiarize themselves effortlessly with the story. However, I feel that it is time to examine the story itself.

The Lord of the Rings is in large part a story about the struggle between good and evil. It is also a story of heroic deeds, fellowship, and moral choices. It is a story about fate, yet paradoxically a story about the consequences of ones actions.

The story is about a ring. But not an ordinary ring: a magic ring which has by "chance" ended in the possession of the Good. And not only that: this ring is the greatest, made to rule over the other Great Rings.

Because of this everything should be all right. But no; the point is that Sauron, the Dark Lord, transferred a great part of his power to the Ring when it was forged, and as long as the Ring exists, Sauron is indomitable. As long as the Ring exists, Sauron's evil forces will overwhelm the Good and take over the world.

But the Ring has an incredible power over people. It tempts with its power and makes itself coveted. It is here that the fairy story "test" enters the picture. Several of the book's characters are at times offered the Ring. Frodo receives the Ring from Bilbo (who thus passes the test), and Gandalf is tempted shortly after: "Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it ".

The Ring gives the impression that it can help to defeat Sauron himself, though in reality it would be the Ringbearer who was defeated: if a mortal took the Ring to himself he would become a Ringwraith, like the Nine whose Rings eventually possessed them. That would have happened to Boromir if he had had his way or perhaps one should say if the Ring had had its way.

In light of this a rather strange thing happens when Tom Bombadil is handed the Ring; when Frodo calmly gives him the Ring (which he has until now guarded like a great treasure) Bombadil seems totally uneffected by the Ring's power. Even when he puts it on his finger, and should have vanished, nothing happens. The Ring has no power over him because he has no craving for power; he only wishes to keep to himself, look to his forest, and live in contentment. He needs no mighty Ring for that. There is of course the possibility that Bombadil is mightier than the Ring, and then again perhaps not. He is, after all, the amazing Tom Bombadil!

Also Aragorn and the fair elven-queen Galadriel are offered the Ring. In the latter's case Tolkien says explicitly that this offering is a test: "'I pass the test', she said. 'I will diminish and go into the West, and remain Galadriel' ".

Both the first and last parts of the quote tell us much about the Ring. The first part tells us that being offered the Ring is a test (as found in fairy stories), and the final part tells us that the Ring will, inch by inch, take over the bearer's personality. Gollom provides an excellent illustration of this. Gollum is the creature who possessed the Ring the longest, apart from its creator, and who shows in the sharpest relief what the Ring can do to someone. Yet, Gollum is split into two characters: Sméagol and Gollum. In this dual personality Sméagol stands for Good, and Gollum for the Ring which he calls his Precious ignorant of the fact that it is the Ring which owns him.

It may seem irrelevant, but the last four Ringbearers were all Hobbits, and none of them lets the Ring entirely rob them of "self". Even Gollum, who has lived with the Ring for 478 years (!) is totally vanquished (the "I" Sméagol, the Good, surfaces occasionally). The reason for this must be the Hobbits' natural resilience. It can be asked if they are not, in reality, the strongest folk in all Middle-earth. It is the Ring's strength (its desirability) which turns out to be its weakness, for when it has owned a person that person will continue to crave it and do all they can to get it back. Paradoxically it is this desire to have it which finally results in its destruction.

Throughout the book there is the recurrent theme that Evil unwittingly aids its own downfall (though it is open to discussion whether Gollum is, in fact, evil). For although the forces of Evil do all they can to destroy Good and win the War (and nearly succeed) they are to a large degree responsible for their own defeat. There is a range of instances where this happens, and all are crucial to the outcome of the War. The first (and greatest) mistake is made by Sauron himself when he, blinded by the hope of greater power and conquests, weakens himself by giving the Ring part of his life-force and power.

Together with other events this helps the forces of Good, through which they finally conquer Evil. Were it not for these actions by the forces of Evil the War of the Ring would have been lost, and Middle-earth covered by darkness and evil.

The use of the terms "good" and "evil" is only appropriate if they are defined, and to do this one must go back to the creation of Middle-earth. At an undefined point in the history Eru created his helping spirits. Together they created the world as a projection of their thoughts. Among them was an "evil" spirit named Melkor (who was later called Morgoth).

If one imagines Eru to be archetypically good (according to our concept of a god), one can wonder why he (it) created an evil character like Melkor. The explanation of this must be that it is to "test" those he has created. They must constantly strive to live and keep away from evil. They cannot lead a life of enjoyment but must show their desire to live and be free. They do this by coming together to defeat evil.

But Eru does not let evil win; he only frightens, and when evil is close to victory fate (that is, Eru) takes a hand. The condition for his intervention is that the Good want to stand against the Evil and choose to fight. The usual belief in Middle-earth is that "something" or "someone" intervenes: that something or someone is Eru. Usually Eru lets things run their course, and in his absence he leaves the Valar to watch over the world.

In this way the stage is set for everyone in Middle-earth to have the right to choose. Throughout the story it is typically the Hobbits who are given a choice by more powerful people (Gandalf, Elrond etc.), but it must be noted that they are not pressed to do anything: they are not even advised, as this advice might effect their choice.

Sauron stands directly opposed to the "rule" about a free choice. The Ring itself is a good illustration of Sauron's position: as soon as someone owns the Ring they are not in a position to choose not to own the Ring. This is likewise the case with the orcs, who are indoctrinated throughout their lives with the false values they live by.

In his own way Eru breaks this doctrine of a free choice, when he intervenes in the story and thereby effects the choices. For me this seems entirely reasonable, as he has made the world a fight between good and evil. Thus, Melkor was the only being created with the potential for evil.

Noone else is evil from the beginning: they gradually become evil, either by upbringing or treatment. Evil often grows in those who are exposed to evil. Even Sauron was not evil from the beginning, and neither was Saruman. Saurman is an example of how someone can become twisted into evil. He started studying the powers of Evil to gain a better understanding of how they could be countered, but he was slowly corrupted. In other words it is impossible to overthrow evil using evil means.

Being confronted with a choice between good and evil leads to an evaluation of the two ways of life. Tolkien proposes that if one chooses Good, one chooses life; but if one chooses Evil, one chooses a path to nothingness or an empty existance. In several places Evil is described by the word "nothingness". Choosing Evil thus results in a regression to nothingness and a devaluation of self. This is seen by the fact that choosing Evil limits one subsequent choices.

After Melkor's fall Sauron remained the epitome of Evil throughout the history. One could therefore think that he alone was the source of all Evil, though this is not the case. There are many instances of Evil beings beyond Sauron; in The Lord of the Rings the most obvious example is Shelob.

Conclusion

When I started this project I had no idea how far it would enhance my understanding of Tolkien's works. Whereas I had regarded The Lord of the Rings as "only" a terrifically good story, though which had many facets, I now see there is a greater coherence.

Before my examination of the subject I had a clear idea that Tolkien's stories had their inspiration in the fairy tale genre, but I did not realise the degree to which this was true. Tolkien uses its symbology, language, characters, and basis for the development of the story. I also had no understanding of the ethical aspects of Tolkien's authorship. During my investigation I have found that The Lord of the Rings, like a variety of existentialism, has a formulaic moral code and concept of Good and Evil.

My knowledge of Middle-earth has also increased, in that I came across material I had not encountered before. All things considered, I found it a profitable project. I will finish with one more quotation: "For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over ".

Source literature

Primary:

Tolkien, J.R.R.: The Lord of the Rings, single volume, 3rd edition. Publisher and year???

Secondary:

Axelsen, Jens: Engelsk-dansk (English-Danish Dictionary) Gyldendal, 1984.

Day, David: A Tolkien Bestiary.

Day, David: The Illustrated Encyclopedia, Mitchell Beasley Publishers, 1991.

Gyldendal: Litteraturhåndbogen, 1989.

Kocher, Paul: Master of Middle-earth, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972.

Lysemose, Lars-Terje Øland (editor): Athelas no. 1, 3 and 4, Danmarks Tolkienforening,

1993-1994.

Ohlmarks, Åke: Sagan om Tolkien, Gebers, 1972.

Strachey, Barbara: The Journeys of Frodo, Grafton 1992.

Toier-Nilsson, Ying: Fantasins underland, EFS förlaget, 1981.

Tolkien, J.R.R.: The Hobbit, Grafton, 1991.

Tolkien, J.R.R.: Tree and Leaf.